Last nights Deal or No Deal....

[Tony*T3]

Young Lady last night on Deal or No deal. Took one of the biggest gambles I've ever seen.

She had dealt on £17,500 earlier in the game.

She went on to uncover all the boxes except 1p and £250,000.

The banker offerred he the deal - give up the £17,500 to open the box, with a swap offered for the box she'd said all along was the one she really wanted.


She took his offer.


For some unknown reason she refused the swap.

She opened the box.


Takes a lot of bottle to make that kind of deal.



She won the big prize (only second time ever I think)

she was cute too...

Edited by Tony*T3 on Friday 13th March 09:25

[Livid]

Personally i love love watching them lose!

[Jasandjules]

Bigger b**ls than most !!

Well played then to her.

[LeoZwalf]

Tony*T3 said:

she was cute too...

And THAT is the actual point you were trying to make all along, wasn't it? ;-)

That problem is a total crock anyway, there is no point to it, no skill needed whatsoever. All that crap they come out with "Oooh, I can FEEL this one's going to be lucky" ... do me a favour will ya!!

Was intruging the first few times but then it just gets totally pointless to watch.

Humph!

[Blib]

Shirley, if she dealt earlier in the game, then she didn't win the big prize?

[LeoZwalf]

Good spot! Maybe the OP meant that she had been offered 17.5k and did NOT deal...?

[Tony*T3]

Blib said:

Shirley, if she dealt earlier in the game, then she didn't win the big prize?

They have a new feature. Occasionally (very occassionaly) the banker offers a reversal or a gamble.

He obviosuly thought she was all talk.

[Dave...H]

She dealt at £17.5k then was offered the 'bankers gamble', which was give the money back and win 1p or £250k, it's a no brainer really, the odds are 50/50, you have to take it!

[Blib]

Tony*T3 said:

Blib said:

Shirley, if she dealt earlier in the game, then she didn't win the big prize?

They have a new feature. Occasionally (very occassionaly) the banker offers a reversal or a gamble.

He obviosuly thought she was all talk.

Or the ratings are slipping?

[Jasandjules]

Blib said:

Shirley, if she dealt earlier in the game, then she didn't win the big prize?

the OP stated the the banker offered her the chance to give back the 17k and then choose the swap i.e. a second chance (or, in realistic speak a chance to increase the ratings and tension in the game because otherwise as soon as people have dealt the viewers turn over to see what else is now, whereas now they have to stay in case something more exciting happens).

They have to keep adding new bits and bobs to keep it interesting.

[uriel]

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

I'm subjected to this when at my mother's house and they sit there and go on about it like they're playing chess. Open the box and they've won "Oh, that was well done, nicely played". Open the box and they've lost "Ah, stupid bint, she did that all wrong...what she should have done was take the deal".

[Jasandjules]

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

What was well played was having the courage to risk 17.5k at the end.

[Chim Chim]

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

I'm subjected to this when at my mother's house and they sit there and go on about it like they're playing chess. Open the box and they've won "Oh, that was well done, nicely played". Open the box and they've lost "Ah, stupid bint, she did that all wrong...what she should have done was take the deal".

You better not watch Golden Ball's then as that needs similar player skills.

[Jasandjules]

Chim Chim said:

You better not watch Golden Ball's then as that needs similar player skills.

I HATE that show simply because it rewards scum/lying cheating behaviour.

[Blib]

Jasandjules said:

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

What was well played was having the courage to risk 17.5k at the end.

Where's the risk? They come into the show with nothing, they are no worse off whatever they do. Now, if they had to match with their own money........

.....where's that Peter Bazelgletetetete?

[oobster]

Jasandjules said:

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

What was well played was having the courage to risk 17.5k at the end.

Exactly. She could have given up £17.5K for 1p. I doubt i'd have done the same in her position.

The Mrs and I normally watch DoND at 6x speed on Sky+ - I consider it a form of torture to watch it at normal speed.

[him_over_there]

This is a bizzare show.

They have managed to string out someone guessing numbers between 1 and whatever, to ~30 minutes of TV!

How, how did they do that ?

I also can't stand how Noel plays it up, "Every game is different..ooooh" and talking about strategies.

There are no strategies!!! You are guessing numbers. You are performing a task that could be performed by the most basic of automated computer programs.

People are morons!

Edited by him_over_there on Friday 13th March 10:04

[gerbo]

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

I'm subjected to this when at my mother's house and they sit there and go on about it like they're playing chess. Open the box and they've won "Oh, that was well done, nicely played". Open the box and they've lost "Ah, stupid bint, she did that all wrong...what she should have done was take the deal".

My mother is exactly the same. She believes that there is a large amount of skill involved in picking which red box to open.
I personally, am convinced that they are all actors employed to make it as dramatic as possible. You would think that if they were random members of the public that there would be a boring sh*te on every now and then.

[Jasandjules]

Blib said:

Where's the risk? They come into the show with nothing, they are no worse off whatever they do. Now, if they had to match with their own money........

.....where's that Peter Bazelgletetetete?

Because they HAD 17.5k which they could keep if they did not take the deal/swap thing. SO they would be 17, 499.99p worse off if they open the 1p box.

[uriel]

oobster said:

Jasandjules said:

uriel said:

Jasandjules said:

Well played then to her.

That's what boils my piss over the whole thing...it wasn't well played at all. It was completely random. About as well played as the 'player' that won last week's lottery.

What was well played was having the courage to risk 17.5k at the end.

Exactly. She could have given up £17.5K for 1p. I doubt i'd have done the same in her position.

So if she'd gambled and won 1p, it'd have been poorly played?

My definition of playing something well is having the positive outcome be based on your input. Not just taking a wild gamble that's not based on anything other than random choice.